Peru's New Law Risks Return to Military-Police Impunity, Critics Warn
A new law in Peru, Ley 32735, is raising serious concerns among critics who argue it represents a dangerous and unconstitutional regression towards a military-police justice system that historically served as a tool for impunity and political persecution. This system, with roots dating back to 1898, has repeatedly been expanded to allow military courts to judge civilians and military personnel for common crimes, often overriding ordinary justice. Historical figures like Sánchez Cerro, Benavides, Odría, and Fujimori are cited as having instrumentalized this system for repression. The fight against terrorism further distorted this model, with Ley 24150 in 1985 allowing military-police courts to handle human rights violations committed by security forces in emergency zones, leading to impunity, as seen in the Accomarca case where a patrol extrajudicially executed 62 villagers, yet all defendants were acquitted of qualified homicide. The Constitutional Court (TC) had previously ruled that military-police jurisdiction should be based on the legal right protected, not merely the status of the perpetrator or location of the crime. However, Ley 32735 appears to reintroduce the problematic model, expanding the definition of "crime of function" to allow military-police courts to judge common crimes committed in emergency zones. This new law subordinates ordinary justice to military-police jurisdiction, even allowing military courts to take over cases already processed or sentenced by civilian courts. The Supreme Court's role is diminished, as it must now resolve jurisdictional disputes in favor of the military-police system based on vague criteria. Critics fear this law will enable military and police personnel to commit abuses and corruption with impunity, and they are calling for its non-application by ordinary courts and its challenge before the Constitutional Court.
This legislative development in Peru raises questions about the balance between national security imperatives and the protection of fundamental human rights and due process. The historical context provided suggests a recurring tension in Peruvian governance between centralized state control and individual liberties, particularly during periods of unrest. The reintroduction of broader military-police jurisdiction, despite prior Constitutional Court rulings against it, may reflect an incentive structure prioritizing swift, albeit potentially less accountable, resolution of offenses within security forces over the principles of independent judicial review. Looking ahead, such legal frameworks could create systemic vulnerabilities, potentially hindering international cooperation on human rights and undermining public trust in the justice system. The challenge lies in designing security and justice mechanisms that are both effective in maintaining order and robustly protective of civil liberties, ensuring accountability across all state institutions.
AI-generated to prompt reflection — not editorial opinion, not advice, not a statement of fact. How this works.